Cifra tus archivos más importantes importantes

The interpretive bombshell dropped by Weiss and Schweitzer was bound to provoke a counter reaction. Charles Harold Dodd (1884 – 1973) proposed the antithesis to the konsequente school by re-affirming the kingdom sayings that focused on the in- time and historical nature of the kingdom. Dodd argued that while undoubtedly elements of Jesus’ teaching did relate to the final cosmological end of history, Schweitzer had overstepped by relegating the “realized” elements of the kingdom to later Gospel redactors in the early church.22 A cursory reading of the Gospels makes it quite evident that Jesus saw that the kingdom was present in his person and ministry. In Dodd’s view, Jesus explicit teachings of the kingdom all supported realized eschatology; the

(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996) 207ff. For a response to Wright’s view, see Gathercole, “Critical and Dogmatic Agenda” who argues that Wright does not adequately represent Schweitzer’s position.

21 _{Ibid., 398.} 22

C.H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (London: Nisbet, 1935, 1961). Dodd returns to the issue of eschatology in his The Apostolic Preaching and its Development (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1936, 1967); History and the Gospel (London: Nisbet, 1952); The Coming of Christ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951).

apocalyptic perspective came primarily through the parables.23 He reasoned therefore, that because the realized teachings were more forthright, plain, and required less

subjective interpretation they should be considered as the best evidence of the view most emphasized by Jesus.24

When Jesus issues the phrase “the kingdom of God has come upon you” (RSV), 25

ephthasen (is come) can only mean that the kingdom is immediate and accessible. So,

the kingdom of God is historical, presently experienced by Jesus hearers, and connected with the personhood of Jesus: “In some way the kingdom of God has come with Jesus

23 _{Dodd’s work brought to light the connection between the parables and the kingdom of God that had not}

previously been expressed. Norman Perrin notes that “after Dodd any interpreter of the parables had to become self-conscious about his understanding of Jesus’ use of the kingdom of God.” See Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom 97-98.

24

Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, 32-33. In comparing the various Gospel sources Dodd claims that the “earliest traditions” are “explicit and univocal” in support of the realized view. By examining the Q material, Dodd believes, one will find that the realized view dominates overwhelmingly. Furthermore, the textual favorites of Schweitzer and the consistent view can be explained exegetically as later formulations of editors or early Church tradition. Robert F Berkleyhas considerable doubts about Dodd’s attempt to carry his argument on his interpretation of the Greek verb ήγγικεν “to draw near.” Berkley painstakingly catalogs the considerable ambiguity of ήγγικεν in both New Testament and Qumran documents, and finds that Dodd’s claim that “to draw near” supports his realized eschatology is not as strong a case as he would wish. See his “ΕΓΓΙΖΕΙΝ, ΦΘΑΝΕΙΝ, and Realized Eschatology “ Journal of Biblical Literature LXXII, (June, 1963) 177-87. For a dispensationalist appraisal of these claims by Dodd, consult John F. Walfoord, “Realized Eschatology” Bibleotheca Sacra (October, 1970) 313-23, who challenges Dodd on many points, summarizing with an expected dismissal of Dodd’s program: “It may be concluded that in the concept of the person and work of Christ, Dodd is seriously divergent from traditional orthodoxy,” and later refers to Dodd’s eschatology as “bankrupt.” 322-23. T.W. Manson raised very early questions about Dodd’s selective exegesis of these passages in his The Teachings of Jesus: Studies of its Form and Content (Cambridge: the University Press, 1951) 279ff. Also insightful is the interchange between Dodd and J.Y. Campbell in The Expository Times XLVIII. Both Kenneth Clark ‘Realized Eschatology” Journal of Biblical Literature 56 (March 1957) 367-83 and Clarence Craig “Realized Eschatology” Journal of Biblical Literature (September 1940) 17-26 are heavily critical of Dodd’s forced exegesis as well. Clark argues that Dodd’s insistence that “has come” is the best understanding of ephthasen is faulty, contending that the comparable literature suggests “drawn near” is a better understanding. W.G. Kümmel largely agrees with Craig against Dodd, see the discussion of Kümmel below. This discussion will be resumed in the discussion below in the Vineyard’s understanding of the four kingdom tenses, as discussed by Derek Morphew.

25

Matthew 12:28 and Luke 11:20, both Q statements. Dodd also argues strongly that the use of ennigken, “at hand” used in Mark 1:15 is another example of the earliest and most reliable textual tradition, which is contested. Dodd is adamant that ennigken must be understood as “arrival,” rather than merely “near.” Berkley’s excellent discussion of the exegetical arguments by both Dodd’s supporters and detractors is helpful to understand the subsequent response to the realized eschatology thesis. Berkley contends that the argument cannot be conclusively decided from the textual evidence alone. See also George Beasley- Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), 70-74.

Himself.”26

The mistake of the konsequente Eschatologie School was that, in their attempt to negotiate a compromise by asserting the “nearness” of the kingdom, they negated the plain meaning of the explicit passages which stated that the kingdom had come.27 The

evidence of the arrival of the kingdom is found in Jesus’ own words in his response to John’s followers: “The blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have the Gospel preached to them.”28 Even in this, the kingdom is an act of God alone, and man can do nothing to hasten its coming, build it, or grow it.29

If the message of the kingdom is historical, and present in the ministry of Jesus, then what are we to think of the eschatological sayings? After discussing the relevant apocalyptic or “prophetic” sayings, Dodd argues that the apocalyptic sayings of Jesus are primarily symbolic,

that is, they point to an existent reality beyond time, space, and human comprehension.30 Agreeing in a sense with Schweitzer that Jesus must be understood in the context of Jewish apocalyptic, he contended that Jesus dramatically revised the apocalyptic

26 _{Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, 30.} 27 _{Ibid., 33-34.}

28

Ibid., 35, quoting Jesus’ response to John’s disciples in Luke 7:21.

29 _{Dodd completely refutes the “social” program of the Kingdom as modeled by Kant and Ritschl. He}

argues that the “Growth Parables” such as the Sower, the Tares, the Leaven, the Secret Seed and the Mustard Seed are a “commentary on the actual situation in the ministry of Jesus” and not to be interpreted “as implying a long process of development introduced by the ministry of Jesus and to be consummated by His second advent.” The Kingdom of God has come by “no human effort, but by an act of God.” However, Dodd curiously adds that since the Kingdom has now come, there is a need for human effort, as “the harvest waits for the reapers.” Ibid., 155. He does not further elaborate on this apparent paradox.

30

Ibid., 80. Early in his writing, Dodd also suggests that the apocalyptic sayings were probably generated by the early church as a way to explain the failure of the mission of Jesus. It was the fundamental

misunderstandings of the disciples about the mission that forced them to interpret literally what was meant figuratively, i.e. the “Symbolic” nature of the apocalyptic sayings and parables. See Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching, 55. George Ladd notes that in his later writings, Dodd seems less adamant about his purely realized eschatology, as he seems to make room for the eschatological Kingdom consummated at the end of history. See Ladd, The Presence of the Future, 20.

context far beyond what his hearers could comprehend. Thus, we can make peace with the historical problem of the Parousia by understanding that the apocalyptic sayings have a deep symbolic background in Jewish eschatology, such as the mysterious teachings in the book of Daniel.31 The sayings of Jesus also point beyond the historical plane, to an absolute, eternal reality that cannot be adequately captured in human language.32 Thus the eschatological sayings belong to the “absolute order” of reality, and are not expected to be fulfilled in salvation history.33

The function of the parables then, are to serve as commentaries of sorts on the life and ministry of Jesus; that is, they are didactic tools of a particular time in history. They explain the present, active kingdom in the ministry of Jesus.34

It is in this context that the parables of the kingdom of God must be placed. They use all the resources of dramatic illustration to help men to see that in the events before their eyes—in the miracles of Jesus, His appeal to men and its results, the blessedness that comes to those who follow Him, and the hardening of those who reject Him; God is confronting them in His kingdom, power and glory. This world has become the scene of a divine drama, in which the eternal issues are laid bare. It is the hour of decision. It is realized eschatology.

35

31 _{Dodd states “it is at least open to the reader to take the traditional apocalyptic imagery as a series of}

symbols standing for realities which the human mind cannot directly apprehend.” Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom 81. He also argues that in regards to the various predictions of Jesus that obviously did not obtain, the early church was tasked with the “remolding” of the apocalyptic sayings to fit their historical circumstances: i.e. the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom 51.

32

Ibid., 83

33 _{Ibid., 82.} 34 _{Ibid., 155.} 35 _{Ibid., 159.}